Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz

The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a request for adminship that did not succeed. Please do not modify it.

Chzz

(61/76/15) Withdrawn by candidate. Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:09:30 (UTC) -- Avi

Nomination

Chzz (talk · contribs) – Chzz has been around since early last year and has been incredibly active since February this year. In this relatively short time he has gained a remarkably broad experience in many areas of the encyclopedia, and has established himself, in my opinion, as one of the friendliest and most helpful editors that we have.

I first met Chzz when he started helping at WikiProject Articles for creation and I noticed how much care and attention went into his article reviews. He often takes the time to give a constructive comment (example) when a submission has some issues, rather than just using the default message. He also spends considerable time formatting and expanding articles after reviewing them (see, for example, Donald Miralle). Chzz helps out with Category:Unreviewed new articles and has demonstrated a full understanding of guidelines and policies relating to inclusion criteria. He regularly nominates articles for speedy deletion and also makes full use of the proposed deletion and articles for deletion processes.

Chzz spends time answering questions at the help desk and responding to queries in Category:Wikipedians looking for help. Often his talk page acts as a help desk as well and you will see the quality of the help given (random example) from looking through the archives.

My perception is that this editor is highly principled and does not shy away from standing up for what he/she feels is right. I have seen this editor handling delicate situations rather well (example) with a good combination of admonishment and encouragement. Above all they are conscientious, evidenced by the careful keeping of notes of issues which need to be monitored or followed-up later. In my opinion, Chzz will make a fine administrator and I'm glad he finally succumbed to pressure and agreed to stand. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Unsolicited Co-nomination that is determined to be a day late to the party but must be done. I'm surprised that I'm not the initial nominator. Chzz is one of the most courteous and helpful users we have on this project, I've been pushing this RfA for a long while. The user does a lot of work that admin tools will help with greatly, and alleviate some of the work of others actively helping new Wikipedians in working with the project, from being able to see deleted pages and if necessary, undelete and userfy (if appropriate, and Chzz knows when it is appropriate) to deleting outright spam to page protection to blocking troubleseome accounts and IPs. CSD concerns are valid, but remember that an admin is acting upon the proper course of action, not making the CSD nomination. There is a world of difference, I trust this user completely. Keegan (talk) 20:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I want no more to do with this, I no longer trust this user completely. I still love Chzz as a person and for the help and everything he has done at -en-help, but this is all too much. Keegan (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Candidate, please indicate acceptance of the nomination here:

Thank you for your kind words, Martin - I'll do my best. I accept  Chzz  ►  09:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the candidate

Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve Wikipedia as an administrator. It is recommended that you answer these optional questions to provide guidance for participants:

1. What administrative work do you intend to take part in?

A: I can help with the deletion processes (CAT:CSD backlog, expired PROD, and AfD - in all cases, of course I would try to rescue the article if possible). I often check through new pages, and deleting the blatantly inappropriate content rather than tagging it would be more efficient. I can help with page protection issues (including the never-ending {{editprotected}}). I'm sure I could help with blocking too; I've noticed occasional delays in processing WP:UAA recently. I understand that DYK needs help - I'm familiar with the process there, as I've had quite a few DYK's. I'm quite happy to help in any area at all, although I'll certainly triple–check any actions until I am very familiar with the tools. I would also find it useful to be able to see deleted articles when helping new users, and userfy where appropriate.

2. What are your best contributions to Wikipedia, and why?

A: I'd say that it was helping other users (see my talk page archives) - I think that's the most important thing that anyone can do on Wikipedia. In terms of articles though...I most enjoyed William Windsor (goat), because lots of people got involved, including several that don't edit much. Re-launching spotlight led to me working on Marco Polo quite a bit; I helped Fountain of Time on it's way to FA (GAR), and I edit a lot when I process GANs, such as First-person shooter. I've helped new users create articles such as Dagenham Roundhouse, 2009 Thekkady boat disaster. All of those preceeding examples are about collaboration, which I think it the heart of Wikipedia. In addition, I have created articles from scratch, such as Tanna japonensis, Lydia Foy, Arthur Adams (singer), and many more.

3. Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or have other users caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?

A: I've had disagreements, and thus "arguments" in the truest sense, but I've never entered into an edit-war. I've occasionally felt stressed, and when that happens I step away from the keyboard or work on something else for a while, to regain perspective (eg). I'm not afraid of dealing with contentious, difficult issues. Recently, for example, I've worked hard to resolve the many difficulties in Talk:List of best-selling music artists (see extensive archives).

Additional optional questions from candidate (might as well get this out of the way)

4. Why were you blocked?

A: A year and five months ago, shortly after becoming a 'serious' contributor, I was full of the spirit of WP:BOLD, and embraced the freedom of Wikipedia. I thought that adding an image would make the article on goatse much more informative, and I felt that the discussions on the topic did not show any policy-based reasoning that prohibited just going ahead and adding one. I uploaded the image, and it was almost instantly deleted, so with righteous indignation, I tried again, and a third time - and was blocked for just over 1 hour. I certainly wouldn't do anything like that now that I understand things better; I would, instead, work towards consensus. I've made many contributions since then, and had no significant drama at all.

Additional optional questions from Bwilkins

5. Would you be willing to advise bureaucrats in private of any alternate account that you may have, or may create in the future if you become an administrator?

A: I have no problem in declaring it right here. I have never edited with another account, except;

• Prior to signing up, I edited a little as an IP - very little though, and it's many years ago; I can't even remember what it was, some very minor typo or something.
• ChzzBot (talk · contribs) - an approved BOT account
• MaxiPop (talk · contribs) which was created per User:WereSpielChequers/Newbie treatment - I informed Arbcom of this before using it, and as you'll see I mucked things up by forgetting I was logged in to that one, and answered a helpme shout [1]. I signed as soon as I realized, [2] - guess I'm not very good at 'socking' :-)
• One other account, per the above, which is currently still performing the said 'test' - naming it here would defeat the object, although it's not a dig deal, if you want me to. Again, arbcom informed. I've made 5 edits with it.
• I have forgotten to log in a couple of times (or been logged out through a disconnect), but I've corrected that with a sig later.

I have never made any other edits with any other accounts.  Chzz  ►  11:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to hide here; I appreciate how important this is, and can provide any information required.  Chzz  ►  11:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional questions from NuclearWarfare stolen from Jennavecia

6. What is your view of the current BLP situation? Do you believe there is a problem or do you believe that we are doing a sufficient job in maintaining our BLPs and protecting the subjects of them? If the former, please explain how significant you feel the problem is.

A: BLP problems are a massive, complex issue. There are special laws with respect to protection of individuals, therefore it seems only right that we should have specific policies and guidelines, and that we should dedicate special attention to these articles. We have a duty to respect privacy, and there are both legal and ethical considerations.

Diligence is required. An important point here, often forgotten, is that BLP information frequently appears in non-BLP articles - particularly ones about companies and events; an example appeared here in this RfA. Another concern is, when reverting vandalism, the reverter might be adding back unsourced, contentions material - and the burden of evidence lies with the reverter.

Ideally, all articles would be perfect, but in practical terms, we have limited resources. 54,000 articles are tagged Unreferenced BLPs, and 14,000 lack sources. We cannot treat BLP as we do other articles - even if they have appropriate, well-sourced and balanced information (and adhere to WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:OR), repeating defamatory claims that appear in RS may be illegal. We cannot bury our heads in the sand; WP is where people look for facts, and BLP wiki articles change lives

I think that current change patrollers do an incredible job, and the vast majority of unsourced BLP information is picked up amazingly quickly - but we cannot claim to spot it all. I hesitate to mention flagged revisions, but the case of protecting living persons whilst retaining the ability for freedom of editing does make the strongest case for some form of monitoring - and anyone recoiling instantly at the very concept would be wise to read what Nilitres wrote about the subject. I am not advocating flagged revs, but I am not dismissing the entire concept out of hand - considerable debate is needed.

I hope that I will be able to assist on the BLP noticeboard, and hope to learn there from the more experienced administrators.  Chzz  ►  17:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

7. For BLP AFDs resulting in "no consensus", do you believe it is better to default to keep or default to delete? Why?

A: Policy states that Under most circumstances, if there is no rough consensus the page is kept but "Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." - may is the key word here, and assessment of what constitutes 'relatively unknown' is subjective. If it was a clearly notable individual with solid RS (and was not one event), I would lean towards keeping it, but removing anything that was not well sourced. The reality is, in a complex case, if in doubt I would seek input from others before making a decision - policies and guidelines are not the law, and each case deserves individual consideration - hence I am unable to give a generic yes/no answer.  Chzz  ►  17:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification (following comments from NW) I think that the default of keep is fine, with the caveat quoted in q.8 allowing admin discretion to delete in the case of the relatively non-notable subject requesting deletion. I worry that default-delete might lead to nominations for reasons unrelated to contentious information, privacy concerns or undue weight (such as, for example, a dispute about whether or not an article meets the precise requirements of WP:MUSICBIO or WP:PORNBIO or whatever), where the subject might actually want an article.  Chzz  ►  05:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

8. Imagining you're an admin, you go to close a BLP AFD on a marginally notable individual. Reading through the comments, you see that the subject of the article (identity verified through OTRS) has voiced concerns about false claims that have been made in the article, and wants it to be deleted. How much consideration, if any, do you give to their argument?

A: I would carefully check the article. If there were false claims, I would remove them immediately, pending discussion with other editors. Such removal might, in extreme cases, require deletion of the entire article. We must be tolerant, welcoming, and discuss their concerns; although they cannot demand the removal of information that adheres to all policies and guidelines, any more than other users can, I would carefully consider their views, particularly in respect of the exception in no-consensus noted above. Of course, if they make legal threats, then that must be directed to the Foundation.  Chzz  ►  17:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification (following comments from NW) Apologies if the above was not sufficiently clear; I was trying to keep it short, and to emphasize the need to immediately remove false claims - that would be my first action. It is unclear in the example what proportion of the article the subject said were "false claims", hence my considering action in the case of specific false claims in an otherwise reasonable article - discussion with the subject might reach an agreement to simply remove some portions, as their 'delete this whole thing' could be reactionary, and might be solved through discussion and reasoning. However, I did not address the specific question re. AfD closure: bearing the subjects request in mind, I would perform a inclusion test - if the information was not widely reported, OR was 'tabloidesque', OR it was one event, then I would close it as delete. Otherwise, if there was no rough consensus, I would use my best judgement to assess the articles validity, considering general policies and the goals of Wikipedia; as a BLP, I would be much more conservative than with non-BLP articles (where no consensus = keep), following DP - Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete. I would close as 'keep' or (more likely) 'delete', with a clear explanation of my reasoning.  Chzz  ►  05:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Btilm

9. What is the difference between a ban and a block?

A:Isn't there a template for this question yet? :)

Special:Block allows SysOps to block or unblock users, IPs and ranges of IPs. This prevents them from editing. Blocks can have an expiry time, or be indefinite. Settings can prevent account creation, 'autoblock' all IPs that the editor uses, prevent the user from emailing, and - importantly - allow or disallow editing of the users talk page (where they could appeal the block). There are different considerations when blocking a username or an IP address. Wikipedia:Blocking policy details the rationales.

The word ban can be used for several things, but often refers to an ArbCom-authorized discretionary sanction, or a site ban.

As part of the arbritration process, ArbCom can impose sanctions on one or more editors, usually temporary in nature, which revoke editing privileges from one or more pages or a specific topic area. The decisions may be enforced by uninvolved administrators, following appropriate warnings, and this action might include the use of a block.

Similar restrictions may also be imposed by the community, through consensus.

A site ban, on the other hand, is a decision to utterly prevent an editor from contributing to the project. Any edits identified as being made by a banned user are reverted (with some exceptions), and any pages they create are deleted. This type of ban can only be imposed by community consensus, ArbCom, Mr. Wales, or the Foundation.  Chzz  ►  21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

10. When should cool down blocks be used and why?

A: Blocks to just cool-down a user should never be used, because blocks are not punitive; blocking is used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia. Cool blocks might be used for cool scientific purposes though.  Chzz  ►  21:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

11. What is your opinion about notability as it relates to the inclusion/exclusion of content on Wikipedia? That is, what do you think an ideal Wikipedia would look like in terms of content? Do you feel that anything the meets the general notability guidelines should be allowed (excluding what Wikipedia is not type articles), or do you feel that some things aren't notable even if they have been covered in depth by multiple reliable sources? Are there any types of articles that you feel are automatically notable; that is, worthy of inclusion just by being verifiable without direct proof of in depth coverage in multiple reliable sources? (To be clear, I am looking for your personal opinion, and hopefully an insight to the way you think, not a restatement of current policy.)

A: I don't find the concept of an 'ideal Wikipedia' to be useful, because it is inherently a never-ending project. I think that the general notability guideline covers the vast majority of potential articles, but WP:N (and it's kin) are guidelines, not policies, and whilst they can be extrememly helpful in guiding decisions, I believe that any encyclopaedic content (ie non-CSD material) deserves fair consideration, on a case-by-case basis. Plenty of existing, valid stubs are "verifiable without ... in depth coverage", and are useful and encyclopaedic. I think that my attitude is summed up best through my membership of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Making Broad Judgments About the Worthiness of a General Category of Article, and Who Are in Favor of the Deletion of Some Particularly Bad Articles, but That Doesn't Mean They Are Deletionists  Chzz  ►  22:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Epeefleche

12. WP:OTHERSTUFF says "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist.... While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument...." Do you think that the exception is a sensible one? And would you would expect that you would be willing to rely upon such an argument as part of your reason for rendering a decision in a deletion discussion?

A: That's not an exception; WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a rule, it's a reason why a particular type of deletion argument is not a good one - and it states that it's a poor argument if it is the sole reason; if someone used comparisons as part of a deletion reasoning, it wouldn't be the only reason. Comparisons with other similar articles are inevitably drawn, and are, in some cases, useful indications. I doubt that I would refer to another article in a closing argument; if I thought that it was worth introducing such a comparison, I would do so within the debate itself (and thus I wouldn't be closing it).  Chzz  ►  00:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Rspeer

13. You say that you want to help with UAA because it is often backlogged. I don't think all the situations that the bot calls backlogs are really backlogs; often people leave entries up for discussion and extra scrutiny when they're borderline, especially in the cases where it seems like something should be done but blocking isn't it. What would you want to change about the UAA process?

A: I'm sorry, but I didn't say that it was often backlogged - merely that, recently, I'd noticed occasional delays - by which I meant that I'd reported a promotional name violation to UAA, and it was not blocked for several hours. I don't have any major concerns over the UAA process; in my experience, such matters have been dealt with efficiently and with clear reasoning - I just hope that I can help speed things up, by adding another pair of eyes.  Chzz  ►  01:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from Mr.Z-man

14. This is a follow-up to Q6. In your answer to that, you say "repeating defamatory claims that appear in RS may be illegal." - What do you mean by this? If The Des Moines Register reports that notable person X from Altoona, Iowa is a pedophile and has been seen making advances toward children, would you say that its a BLP violation to include it in person X's article with a citation to the newspaper article?

A: Potentially, yes. For example, if the newspaper had, after publishing that report, been sued for libel, then reproducing it could potentially lead to legal action against WMF - although, as I understand it, this is a murkey area of the law, depending on such things as whether Wikipedia can be considered a 'provider' under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, and other such legalities. Considerations for including this type of material include whether or not other reliable sources supported the allegation, the notability of the individual, and whether the information was relevant to their notability. The applicable policy here is WP:NPF, which states that In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal. Even if the information met the preceding requirements, we would have to make it clear that the sources made these allegations, not Wikipedia itself.  Chzz  ►  04:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional question from JamieS93

Not meaning to cause any drama, but it would be helpful to get public clarification on one particular incident that you may have been involved in, so we can set the record straight. Feel free to take your time, and don't be rushed to respond. Thanks, JamieS93 18:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

15. Earlier this year, User:Mentifisto had an RfA that was successful. According to what I have heard, Chzz communicated with Mentifisto off-wiki, saying that he had the ability to cause more opposers to appear at Menti's RFA if he wanted to. Soon after, two accounts (with fairly sparse contributions) showed up in the oppose section. I'm interested to know the details surrounding this event, and how much of it is true.

A: It is true that I communicated extensively with Mentifisto off-wiki during their RfA. We spoke for many, many hours about all kinds of things, discussing the RfA, and Wikipedia in general; I felt that Mentifisto lacked experience in content-building, and offered to help with that (regardless of the RfA outcome). I assure you, absolutely, that I did not engage in any form of meat-puppetry or 'vote manipulation'.  Chzz  ►  08:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Leaky Caldron

16. Can you set out your position on WP:Recall? Not looking for a campaign promise - just a simple statement on your thoughts.

A: I've honestly not given consideration to this matter; I'm aware of the idea, and have heard that it is controversial, but I am literally forming an opinion right now, after a look at that page. My first thought is that, if other policies and procedures are correct, it should be an unnecessary addition - but I can see why people choose to list themselves, because the other removal options seem to be inordinately long-winded. My honest, personal view is that, currently, adminship is far too big of a deal, partly or largely because the removal of the bit is so complex. If a user causes problems on Wikipedia, they are blocked immediately (without prejudice), whilst the problem is addressed - whereas, if an administrative problem is bought to the attention of the community, removal of this supposedly no-big-deal flag is an inordinately bureaucratic, long-winded process (except in the most egregious of cases, of course). This is, however, an opinion (as requested), and not even a fully-formed one.  Chzz  ►  08:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional question from Theleftorium

17. What do you think of the examples brought up in TwilligToves's oppose?

A: I am grateful to TwilligToves for bringing it to my attention, and even more grateful that Moonriddengirl has already removed the problem parts decsribed. In the case of 2009 Thekkady boat disaster, the article was written quite hastily. A new user was seeking help, having been on the scene and having good, newsworthy pictures. So my first action was to add some sources, and change this (17:10, 3 Oct) to (20:10, 3 Oct), to submit it to ITN, and to notify Wikinews. Being unfamiliar with ITN, I waited for guidance, which didn't come until 5th, and I was told that it required good inline references; so I performed these edits - choppy, and too closely paraphrased, but I really wanted to get it in the news while it was current. The ITN suggestion was declined, but it was still within the remits of DYK, so I sent it there. I wish I had revisited it to improve it, and I'm extremely grateful to Moonriddengirl (talk · contribs) for the recent work. I will now endeavour to improve it further, and will work with Moonriddengirl and further advice, I hope, from Ret.Prof.

Regarding Lydia Foy, I do not feel that the problems are huge; in the first instance mentioned, although it is Close paraphrasing, in legal articles it is quite challenging to balance this problem with not altering the exact meaning. In the case of the text, "She was also seeking a declaration that the practice of using biological indicators existing at the time of birth to determine sex for the purposes of registration was ultra vires (outside the powers) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Act 1863" the declaration sought was exactly as stated, and the exact wording given cited in the case as well^[3] (linked in the infobox), and I'm pretty sure (and will check) that the content of such Irish judgements can be reproduced freely; this may misrepresent the facts of the case. In any event, this is clearly a content issue.  Chzz  ►  08:19, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from GrooveDog

18. Why do you edit Wikipedia?

A: I enjoy helping others, as in professional my career I have enjoyed teaching various subjects. I also feel that Wikipedia is very important; I believe that, eventually and in some form or other, it will become the de facto repository of human knowledge. I also have an interest in social dynamics, and Wikipedia certainly provides a (somewhat unique) opportunity to see interactions of a novel kind, and I find it fascinating to see the way that the project evolves. In addition, I find that participation is a good form of self-improvement - it encourages tolerance and respect for diverse views from a wide demographic.  Chzz  ►  08:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Materialscientist

19. Sorry, don't mean to be suspicious, but I'm just baffled by this: you said in A5 "I have never made any other edits with any other accounts" then user:龗 replied to Q15 and right then, user:Chzz corrected his signature. Could you explain that?

A: The computer I am using was left logged on by that other user. Wonderfully ironic, given the subject matter!  Chzz  ►  08:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

More explanation would be helpful here. The other user is hardly active yet uses your computer and in his less than 200 edits just randomly happened to find the Oversight election of your RFA's nominator? --JayHenry (talk) 16:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This co-nominator will toss in a what the fuck? for that as well. I looked at that account when it voted, and was confused. Keegan (talk) 21:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I would also be interested to hear how it is that User:龗 was using sophisticated Wikipedia tools like WP:Friendly from their very first day of editing and added many maintenance templates, removed others, a long sequence of date delinking and in many other ways showed an intimate knowledge of the workings of Wikipedia. SpinningSpark 17:52, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Sphilbrick

20 . I'm puzzled by the sequence of roughly 750 edits to George Bacchus & Sons. Can you explain what is going on?

A: I wrote the article in userspace, and moved it to livespace - along with the many prior edits to that I had made in that test page. This has now been rectified by JamieS93, who has now kindly split the history to sort it out. (Thanks, JamieS93)  Chzz  ►  10:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional optional questions from Spinningspark

21. Following on from question 19, are you prepared to reveal which other users you share your computer with. Are you in the same office or educational establishment?

A: It is a 'private computer' which has, from time-to-time, been used by others - certainly some of which I know to use Wikipedia (see below). To protect identities, I would rather not reveal here the names of other Wikipedians who I know to have used the computer, but am happy to do so to a bureaucrat, if that will help - and perhaps they could check their contribs to confirm that there is no 'funny business' here.  Chzz  ►  10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

On the talk page you have said that 龗 is "a person that I know (very little, to be honest) 'in real life'". In view of that statement your answer seems less than satisfactory. How is it that a person you do not know at all well is using your private computer? SpinningSpark 12:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Additional mandatory questions from Hiberniantears

22. Can you explain why User:龗 appeared on the exact same day that you took a wikibreak?

A: See below.  Chzz  ►  10:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re. alleged sock-puppetry, etc - please refer to Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Chzz#Alleged sock puppetry  Chzz  ►  10:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

General comments

• Links for Chzz: Chzz (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi)
• Edit summary usage for Chzz can be found here.

---

Please keep discussion constructive and civil. If you are unfamiliar with the nominee, please thoroughly review Special:Contributions/Chzz before commenting.

Discussion

• Edit Stats at talk page. AtheWeatherman 10:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Crat CU comment

Regarding the socking, see Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FChzz_.28Moved_from_Talk:RfA.29. CU evidence is very convincing. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Final SPI results here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chzz/Archive — Rlevse • Talk • 03:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Support

1. Support Great user. One of the most helpful to newbies. I personally have mainly seen him in bot areas, where he interacts with others well. Also I've had a look at a few of his edits on admin areas, such as deletion, and am impressed. Fully trust this user with the tools. I'll expand if need be :) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support. And about time too! Chzz is invaluable to Wikipedia, very helpful, knowledgeable, and personable. I'm certain he will make an excellent administrator. -- œ^™ 10:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   With a heavy sigh. -- œ^™ 18:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

2. Support. Looking through the candidate's deleted contribs (back a month or so), I see a lot of good CSD tags. I agree that there were some questionable tags, as noted, and I'd like to see the candidate take more caution before actually hitting the delete button, but I think this is more of a volume issue than a quality issue - with as many tags as I'm seeing, surely a few will be questionable. Looking at the 250+ 150+ CSD tags from this candidate over the last month, if only half a dozen were bad, I'll take it. I also see some thoughtful nominations to AFD, which speaks well for the candidate. In short, I'm unconcerned. No objection to granting the tools. Good luck, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Some of those aren't csd tags. Revised number is more accurate, pending a line-by-line count - which I guess could be done if questions remain. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 12:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
3. He isn't already? except I knew he wasn't. Chzz is helpful at AfC, answers those ever-important {{helpme}} questions and is a great article contributor. GrooveDog • i'm groovy. 12:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support The information presented below by SoWhy is troubling, but Chzz'z explanation and information presented by UltraExactZZ above show that Chzz is willing to fix identified problems and it is a small problem. I do not think Chzz will misuse the tools. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 12:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Removing support pending explanation of alternate accounts ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

   Exemplary editor, one of the most diligent and committed I have come across. Has the character and temperament to learn from and overcome comparatively minor mistakes made and become a definite asset to the admin corps.  Skomorokh, barbarian  13:06, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Suspending pending clarification and full disclosure regarding Q.19.  Skomorokh, barbarian  23:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support: Experienced, has very good policy knowledge and is very helpful. Definitely qualified for the admin tools. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Moving to neutral

   Support Been waiting for this one. Giving Chzz the tools would be one of the greatest benefits to the encyclopedia. Nobody but nobody does more to help newcomers, and if there's a helpme tag somewhere, nine times out of ten Chzz has helped them. One need only look at the talkpage archives for proof Chzz will help this place be friendlier to join. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Weak Support I think Chzz will be a good administrator if he can stay away from things that push his buttons. Everyone makes mistakes and everyone deserves the opportunity to learn and grow from them. Hopefully we can be supportive of him if things get too hot, as hopefully he would if we find ourselves in a contenuous position. Doc Quintana (talk) 13:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Of course (deletion mistakes can easily be undone, and no one is perfect). Majorly talk 13:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support - I've encountered this editor in the field and find him to be thoughtful and reasonable. Agree with UltraExactZZ that Chzz's work in AfD is an overall plus to the project. The objection by So Why is answered well, and I am strongly convinced Chzz will be a quality addition to the mop and bucket corps. My best wishes in the RfA process and beyond, Jusdafax 14:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Note: With great regret, I conclude I will switch to oppose soon re:socking controversy, pending an excellent reason from Chzz not to do so. It doesn't look at all right, and this is a most disturbing set of disclosures. Jusdafax 04:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Update Switched to Oppose, for obvious reasons. Respectfully suggest Chzz withdraw Rfa to spare us all further embarrassment. Jusdafax 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

5. Support Other than being one of the single most helpful people I've come across on here, Chzz displays a very good understanding of the intricacies of policies. I totally take on board SoWhy's concerns below, and would suggest that, should this RfA pass (and probably even if it doesn't) is go slow and steady with CSD. I remember when I used to tag for CSD that it's easy to get carried away with getting things done as fast as possible, and I certainly see admins deleting faster than I do to blast through the 100 page backlog that builds up. Tag, use the preview, check the article meets the requirements on the template, then tag it. Avoid using Twinkle when it could be borderline. GedUK  14:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Support—Peter's oppose is concerning, but I still feel that Chzz is likely to be a net positive if granted +sysop. As others have mentioned, Chzz dedicates their time to helping newcomers, something that's more important than ever at this point. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 14:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Support - the response to SoWhy's concerns is thoughtful and detailed, so I think overall he'll make a good admin. PhilKnight (talk) 14:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
8. Strong Support Very helpful to new people. I just can't see a valid reason for why (s)he shouldn't be an admin. I give my full support for him/her.  Ilyushka88  talk  15:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support No present concerns. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Now that you've been confirmed to have a sockpuppet, I guess I do have a concern. Moving to oppose. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

9. Support without hesitation. I reviewed the opposition, and don't see much to be concerned about. Why? Because Chzz has been incredibly open to constructive criticism and has shown the willingness and ability to improve. All of us make mistakes from time to time. Chzz shows maturity and good form by acknowledging mistakes. That's a huge plus for an admin. Additionally, I have witnessed Chzz in action just recently. We had a guy (Jon Butcher) come in with his PR agent and write a big fluffy article. When people started removing the content as unsourced POV, both the artist and his agent started asking for help at Talk:Jon Butcher. Rather than biting, Chzz calmly helped them by giving them relevant information and help here and here. Many editors would have just templated them to death until they finally gave up in disgust. As seen here, Chzz even remained calm in the face of more hostile rhetoric from the PR agent. As a result, we still have a useful dialog going with those people and we might yet salvage a useful article out of it. Net positive, for sure. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Support - Chzz is exactly the kind of person I'd want as administrator. It's great to deal with an editor who can be cordial even when you disagree with them (see here for an example). He's also quite clueful. Some mistakes with CSD are unfortunate but I don't think should be a bar to his adminship request. -- Atama頭 17:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Sigh... There's no way I could support now. -- Atama頭 09:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

10. Support Seems good. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Strong support - iMatthew ^talk at 18:56, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    Noting continued strong support. iMatthew ^talk at 02:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support Until It Sleeps ^{Talk • Contribs} 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)moving to oppose.

12. Support - the concerns about his AFD tagging remind me of my RFA. Remember that CSD taggers may fall back on the experience and judgment of the reviewing admins. Reviewing admins need to be spot on - CSD taggers are allowed a few mistakes here and there. I'm sure that as a reviewing admin, Chzz will use a very discerning eye. –xeno^talk 19:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
13. YES, PLEASE Keegan (talk) 20:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Support Wikipedia needs more administrators like Chzz. He works tirelessly to help new users become accustomed to the project and feel welcomed. God knows we all make mistakes occasionally, and I've never seen anything in him that would make me believe he would use admin tools to force his opinion, however right he feels it is. Fleetflame · whack! whack! · 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
15. Support - he/she is very knowledgeable about policies, follows through, patient, admittedly imperfect which is perfectly human (and refreshing), and a very devoted regular at wikipedia-en-help. In fact, his/her efforts there at the front line of new editors is something that I think all admins should spend time doing. JoeSmack ^Talk 20:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
16. Support Neuro and I have something in common, in that I also recall similar concerns at my second RFA, and I believe as he does that Chzz can and probably already has learned from these tagging errors. Every interaction I have ever had with Chzz leads me to believe he has a strong understanding of what Wikipedia is and how it works, and we could use more admins who are willing and able to help other users. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support - Constantly on CAT:HELP. We need more admins who are considerate of the newbies. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    Moved to oppose. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

17. Support Not concerned with the alleged errors. In fact, I dispute that tagging The Queen Project was inappropriate: weasel words and wikilinks are not assertions of notability. Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
18. Moved from neutral. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
19. Support Per above and WTHN?.Abce2|This isnot a test 23:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support I will not hold your honest answers against you. Sole Soul (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Move to Oppose due to the sockpuppetry. Sole Soul (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Helpful user. (vote from a helped user by the candidate)--Caspian blue 00:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Move to Oppose due to the sockpuppetry--Caspian blue 00:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support: Moved from neutral. Whilst there are some legitimate concerns below, I believe Chzz will be a great net-positive. The majority of their work is exemplary, and they are very much committed to helping the encyclopaedia improve, particularly in their efforts to get the best out of new users and make them feel wanted. They very much are wanted, but without the likes of Chzz, they might never realise it. I would also like to echo the comments made by Xeno, Joesmack and Keegan. AJCham 00:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Additional: Regarding the CSD concerns and based on Chzz's work with COI editors, helping them to bring questionable articles up to scratch, I believe giving him the mop would actually result in many more productive undeletions and userfications. He has shown a canny knack for rescuing salvable content from articles which are at risk of deletion. For example, his work with The Epstein School (talk page), and patient handling of a significant COI contributor to that article. AJCham 13:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

20. Support - Chzz does an excellent job of working with new Wikipedians; this particular skill is quite rare in administrators, and I believe this is a talent we need to encourage. Communication and collaboration is solid here; adding the administrator tools will just help him be that much more proficient in what he is already doing. Risker (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support. While Chzz has made some mistakes tagging CSD articles, I think everyone who has tagged articles has made the occasional mistake. Chzz has done what he should have done: he acknowledged the feedback and has indicated he would work to do better. That's all we can ask of people here. I don't see any indication the tools would be abused; nothing even close to that, in fact. Adminship is not (and should not be) a big deal, and when there is no indication the tools would be abused, and as long as the editor has a reasonable amount of experience around the place, there should not be any problem twiddling the bits. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Moving to Oppose due to SPI issues. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

21. Strong support BejinhanTalk 03:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Support. Confident that the editor will take on board legitimate concerns raised by opposes. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support. I find the argument that giving Chzz the mop is somehow going to drive away newbies to be frankly bordering on absurd. Absolutely a huge net positive. Remaining opposes do not concern me, as I have absolutely no doubt that Chzz would be able to deal appropriately with legitimate concerns identified in the in the below section. Tim Song (talk) 05:43, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Temporarily indenting support pending clarification as to the account issue. Tim Song (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support on the condition he gets some sleep every now and then. Hers'fold non-admin^(t/a/c) 07:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Switching to neutral-leaning-to-oppose, there's something odd going on here that needs a better explanation. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

23. Strongest possible support. An excellent user. The CSD work highlighted by SoWhy and Chzz's responses to his points show nothing except a user willing to learn from his mistakes. Ironholds (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
24. Strong Support: Chzz is one of the most friendly users I've worked with from the time I am active on Wiki. He would definitely make a very good administrator. LouriePieterse 07:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support a cheerful and friendly editor who will do good things wif da tools. Also I'm impressed by the Goatse thing. Crafty (talk) 08:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC) withdrawing support re alternate account issues Crafty (talk)

    Moved to opposeSupport From neutral. For me out of around 100 CSD tags, only around 8 are dubious and this is a very small minority. Furthermore, Chzz in his comments below has shown his willingness to learn and communicates really well. The CSD's are a minor concern IMO because of this, we all make mistakes and on balance Chzz will be a net positive if promoted to administrator. AtheWeatherman 09:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

25. Support This guy knows his stuff bro, if it was up to me I'd say make this guy da president of wikipedia. I'm new to this though an cant figure out where da sandbox is and I dont wanna be messing around on real pages so could someone help me out. I tried posting on my talk but nobody has responded. Thanks, peace and good luck on ur Admin request bro {{DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 03:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)}

    Support This guys da fcukin man, when i first got here he helped me out and sent me to the sandbox where i now practice so one day i'll be as good as this guy. I say make him da Julius Cesear of Wikipedia cause he nos wat hes doing yo. 1ne DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Did you mean for this vote to replace the one you wrote in the discussion section earlier? That one was moved to the Support section; I am indenting this one for now. (To others: see support #44 below, which was earlier than this one). -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    My bad before, I meant to add this to my previous vote. Thanks for the heads up thats why I moved it down here...1ne

    Should we move this to the support section? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 13:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    I assume so, however I'm not sure of any specific guidance and, as I've contributed to this RFA, I could be deemed as having bias in wanting it added to the support list. Therefore, I would rather leave it to someone who doesn't intend to !vote to make the call on what to do with it. AJCham 13:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

     Done; there should be no difference with it being here or in the discussion area, except from it keeps everything much neater, which is the whole point of having support/oppose columns as I understand it. Anybody can feel free to revert. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    — DaBiGg3TiTaLiaNo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

    moving to oppose. I'm not happy about the DYK discussion that PeterSymonds links from June, where Chzz says some unfortunate things when facing a clear consensus against promotion. But Chzz is the best guy in this project at what he does, and we need his admin help, and I don't think any arm-twisting that I apply is going to make him change his views on WP:NOTCENSORED. IMO, RFA isn't about punishing people who misbehave, it's about doing whatever will help the project, and Chzz with a mop is IMO a net positive. - Dank (push to talk) 14:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    To be clear: I'm not characterizing Jamie, SoWhy or Peter as "punishing" Chzz, those are all valid concerns, Chzz will probably make some calls as an admin that I'm not going to like. But there's so much he does so well. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

26. Support After carefully considering the opposes below, and examining the candidate's work in welcoming newbies and expanding content, have decided that Chzz would make a good admin. --StaniStani  14:54, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Yes, obviously. Pmlineditor ∞ 15:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

27. Support Chzz seems to be a wonderful contributor and I hope that he will be a fine administrator. Warrah (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Support No doubts here! Jeni ^(talk) 18:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Support I've moved here from oppose after reviewing more CSD examples, and in particular the handling of this incident where Chzz took the trouble to inform the newbie of where they could ask their question as opposed to creating it as an article. Weak because there have been some recent mistakes at CSD tagging. Going back to oppose due to socking ϢereSpielChequers 18:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Strong Support I am a user who Chzz helped right when I was starting out. He helped teach me the basic syntax of editing, and his helpful manner and welcoming demeanor are exactly what Wikipedia needs in an administrator. His policy knowledge helps too ;) Regards, MacMed^talk_stalk 18:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Striking my vote because of the socking issues. Will not oppose at this point either however. MacMed^talk_stalk 18:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

29. Strong Support - Chzz is very active in the Wikipedia channels and is very helpful to new users and others who need help sorting out article issues. He's an excellent contributor and the Wikipedia community would largely benefit from his patience and skill. PseudoOne (talk) 19:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Strong Support - extremely helpful user, and, assuming the presence of a belly button, the CSD tags mentioned below were simply mistakes out of the so very many times he got it right too.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 21:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
31. Support Your ready, great user. Good luck. ~ Arjun 22:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support Extremely dedicated and trustworthy editor. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC) Striking per sock concerns. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

32. Support Helpful, trustworthy user. *Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 00:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
33. Support per Risker. Hopefully Chzz takes the opposition below on board; he seems the sort to do so. Nathan ^T 01:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support I do not consider a tiny proportion of mistakes in CSD tagging as a predictor that the same mistakes are likely when he gets the buttons. I doubt that anyone emerges as an administrator perfectly-formed, and Chzz has consistently demonstrated his willingness to listen and learn. That is far more indicative of his likely calibre when he grows into the role of an administrator. If we had to wait for perfection, we'd never have any admins on the project. --RexxS (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Suspending support pending answers to Q. 19, 21, 22. --RexxS (talk) 01:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Moved to oppose. --RexxS (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

34. Support User has been here since 2008. December21st2012Freak ^{Halloween is coming} 02:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support - CSD concerns are blown way out of proportion. A few are actual mistakes (out of many tags) and others are borderline cases. Opposition on this record of CSD is extreme. No other concerns seem to resonate. Shadowjams (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Neutral pending socking concerns. Would like to support, and on this account's record I stand by that, but the recently raised questions deserve answers. Shadowjams (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

35. Strong Support: This user is really good. He actually had to become an admin long ago but never mind, it is never too late! Srinivas 07:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    If for no other reason that I oppose the bullshit of opposing anyone who hasn't dotted every I and crossed every T. People whinge at WT:RFA about admin backlogs and not enough admins then oppose everyone who isn't a perfect candidate. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 08:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Move to oppose in light of recent events.

36. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
37. Support I trust this user, having had a look at his contributions and general conduct. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 09:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
38. Support Opposes below are not enough to prevent supporting this candidate. Having a 6% error rate (6 "wrong" out of 100+ taggings) in CSD is not a problem in my opinion; if we required perfection nothing would be done. The fact that Chzz recognizes the mistakes is enough for me. Judgement issues mentioned below are also not a major concern to me, I would just encourage the candidate to be less "bold" with admin actions that he was with the actions brought up below. The Seeker 4 Talk 12:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
39. Super Strong Support. There's nothing wrong with that. Anyways, this user is delicate in helping ouy newbies. I trust him to be a mop-holder with full responsibilities, on any project cope of the Wikimedia Foundation.-One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 13:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
40. Support I notice SoWhy's highlights in the oppose have swayed several editors. Firstly a few minor errors in judgement during extensive CSD tagging are not to my mind a reason to believe Chzz will do anything other than a good job. Also PeterSymonds arguments are pushing the limits. If we take the two opposes together we would wish all of our admins to be automatons with no strong oppinions on anything. If that is the way wikipedia is to go then I would prefer not to be involved. Then we come to the complaint of JamieS93, well what to say? Some even more incorrect speedy tagging which if it was last month I would say 'oppose' but Chzz has over 4 months and 14,000 edits since then and in counter argument, although those articles should not have been speedy tagged they should also not have been added in the state they were added in. Reahad was not a new user and could have been expected to know better at the time. Polargeo (talk) 15:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Just so others know: I dislike when people get nitpicky about CSD, so I'm really not that type. Honestly, I'm opposing based on a gut feel with some big-picture judgement concerns, and the cases I cite are only weakish examples. Thus, some of my oppose reasoning has not been expressed; it's a general uncomfortable feeling that I'm sure many don't share, but that's okay. Best, JamieS93 16:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

41. I haven't dug deep into Chzz's history the way most of you have, and since I'm not an admin I'm not even sure if I'm qualified to post anything here, but I just wanted to say that Chzz was extraordinarily helpful and pleasant during my recent interaction with him/her, and from my standpoint as a casual Wikipedian, it's always really nice to come across an admin like that. –BMRR (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Thanks for your comment. Of course, all editors are welcome to post here. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

42. Support This would have been strong, but I think the concerns that PeterSymonds raised are a bit concerning. ≈ MindstormsKid 20:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support Chzz is not a robot but he is a very well meaning wikipedian, I would say he is experienced enough and trustworthy enough to take extra care and extra consideration in the things he uses the extra tools with and will not make the wiki wheels drop off. Off2riorob (talk) 20:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

43. Support Tempodivalse [talk] 20:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
44. Support Here from neutral, Chzz is a great editor and would be a net benefit to the project with the tools. I think he understands fully the concerns of the opposers and I trust that he will apply stricter qualifications for speedy deletes, and not use the tools when he is involved in disputes. ThemFromSpace 20:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    STRONG STRONG SUPPORT I can't possibly offer a stronger support for this candidate. I wanted to co-nom him, and I know that User:Ched Davis was also interested but life is to busy for me to check in everday at the moment. Having worked with Chzz at WP:SPOTLIGHT and witnessing all of the article work he does there, and also working with him on IRC for the Wikipedia help channel I know there is no candidate better. Ask any user who has ever used the {{Helpme}} template. Chzz is always one of the first to answer your question and he is always willing to provide the most assistance possible. If this RfA does not pass, I will be greatly saddened. Best of luck.--<span style="font-family:Script MT;color:#36B">Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

45. Support, with reservations. Concern, like others, about CSD tagging, but cautiously confident Chzz will take the admonitions to heart. --SPhilbrickT 23:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
46. Support Chzz helped me settle in to Wikipedia back in February, and I couldn't contribute ass well to this encyclopedia without him. ► Wireless Keyboard ◄ 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
47. Support I've had a few encounters with Chzz, and all of them were positive. It's good that he's willing to reply rationally to any questions about his history editing Wikipedia. The Arbiter^★_★^★ 00:45, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
48. Support based upon my interaction with him, I feel he would be an asset as an admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Support. While there are some perfectly valid concerns, and I initially was intending to vote neutral, some of his responses have convinced me that it would be unlikely that he would abuse the tools. Undoubtedly there are lots and lots of valuable contributions he has made, and so long as he does not abuse admin privileges I don't see too much of an obstacle. After all, adminship is WP:NOBIGDEAL. A little bit of discretion and cautiousness would allay my fears. In the event that this RfA is unsuccessful, if the more serious issues are addressed in the following months then I would be happy to lend my unwavering support at a future RfA. Either way, I'm going weak support at the moment. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 02:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC) Moving to Neutral due to socking concerns. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

49. Support Helpful user with whom I have had many positive interactions. Opposes below are admittedly weak. Triplestop x3 02:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
50.  Support Deo Volente & Deo Juvente, Chzz. — Mikhailov Kusserow (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Support I've actually asked Chzz several times over the last few months if he wanted me to "nom" this RFA, and done so after multiple interactions with him. While Chzz and I do disagree from time to time on various items, I've always found him to be a pleasure to work with, very helpful, and I look forward to working with him in the future. I greatly appreciate his technical abilities in the computer field, and really appreciate the fact that he doesn't approach things with a self-important arrogance that often comes as excess baggage typically associated with many individuals who are accomplished in the technical fields. While I have given a great deal of consideration to Peter's statements (as well as others below), I still believe that Chzz would make a great addition to the admin corp. Chzz has led several projects and drives to improve and build the WP project (chzz/10 and Spotlight), which I greatly admire - and I have no doubts that his interests are geared toward the improvement of our community. With all that said, I do support giving the couple extra tools to Chzz. — Ched :  ?  15:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    While I don't personally get overly concerned by alt accounts and socks in most cases, if a "person" is using the system to throw undue weight towards any area, then it is not only against policy - it is outright wrong, and I simply can't support that. I'm striking my support pending a response from Chzz. While I don't know what explanations there could be here - I'm willing to wait and listen before just jumping to oppose. — Ched :  ?  05:40, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

51. Weak support Would be stronger if it wasn't for CSD concerns (see oppose section). Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 18:24, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
52. Delayed. No brainer. ceranthor 20:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
53. Support. We need the admins. Chzz has a quick mind and in a little more time he'll have clue.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Weak Support and .... if in doubt don't. That pretty much sums up my concerns with the very valid issues raised below regarding CSD, as I'm willing to assume you'll go steady with the tools when you have them. Pedro :  Chat  23:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Per the account issues - removing support pending clarification. Pedro :  Chat  23:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

54. Strong support. Very helpful to newbies like me. For me he is already an admin....--LittleTony (talk) 01:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
55. Support. I had a few concerns about the incidents mentioned below. However, the candidate seems to have a very positive and reasonable attitude on the whole. We shouldn't make this process impossible - administrators don't have to be perfect! —Finn Casey * * * 04:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
56. Support. Though there are a number of concerns elsewhere on this page, Chzz's net gain for the project far outweighs his/her errors. Additionally, Chzz is extremely open to feedback, and appears eager to learn from one's own mistakes (Chzz's openness and level-headedness with regards to the discussion of his/her own mistakes itself is commendable). -M.Nelson (talk) 05:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
57. Support - Been watching for a while and have decided to support. Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 05:38, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
58. Support : a supportive and mature editor; will be a helpful sysop. - Nimbusania talk 06:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    I would like to add, after recent sock-puppetry allegations, if the answer to question 19 turns out to be false I'm changing my vote - Nimbusania talk 04:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Support The copyright concerns at User_talk:Chzz#Copyright_problems are worrying but I liked his comment at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#2009_Thekkady_boat_disaster_and_Lydia_Foy and I'm sure he's learned from the experience. Good luck! :) Theleftorium 10:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Supprt Despite the concerns he will make a good admin. Pikiwyn ^talk 13:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

59. Very Strong Support I have been acquainted with Wikipedia for several years, and have been contributing for about a year. I am based in Thailand part of the year, and can report that very many Thai university students use Wiki when writing English term papers. In my editing, I have had to rely on Chzz several times for assistance, advice, and direction. I have found him to be a perfect gentleman, very courteous, and extremely knowlegeable. His services are a huge asset to Wikipedia, and he will be among the best administrators if he is so appointed. R/T-รัก-ไทย (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
60. Strongest Support Possible Chzz has constantly helped me out whenever I needed help. So what if he made a few mistakes? Like you haven't (no offense to any wikipedians). I trust that chzz will not make those mistakes again.  Btilm  21:06, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
61. Support. I think (s)he deserves it. I think it would be good to let him/her have the mop. Besides, the right can always be taken away, but I doubt that. Good luck buddy! Cubs197 ^(talk) 01:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    COMMENT: The issue is not "a few mistakes" or "his/her errors" or that "in a little more time he'll have clue" or that "the right can always be taken away". The many concerns raised below go his honesty and whether he can be trusted. There are some people who should never be admins. I would make a terrible admin because ConstEdit bias. This not an attack but a simple statement of fact that not all of us are cut out to be admins. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    yes, we have quite enough problems with people who give no signs of difficulty at RfA and then turn out to be less than satisfactory-- candidates who demonstrate major visible problems should not be appointed on the hope they will learn better. DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Agree (sadly) w/DGG's well-put comment.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Weak Oppose A good candidate but their work in CAT:CSD, an area they expressed to wish to work at as an admin, suffers from beginner's mistakes, e.g. A7 for fictional character, G11 for an article that even contains criticism of the subject, A7 for a club that played at the highest level of its sport, G11 without advertising content, A7 with claims of importance and a reliable source and A7 for a band consisting of notable musicians. Those taggings (all declined within the last month) demonstrate that the candidate has not yet the necessary grasp on the speedy deletion criteria (especially G11 and A7) to be trusted with the deletion button - which is a shame because he has shown to a be very good candidate for adminship otherwise. Regards SoWhy 09:53, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   • Hanayu Ashitaba (20 September 2009) I tagged as {{db-person}} - yes, that was incorrect; it should have been redirected, as it is now. I understand why I made that mistake, and won't repeat it.
   • Everything (software) I tagged as {{db-spam}}, as I thought it was "exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic", based on the phrases like can rapidly find files, an extremely lightweight application, using very little memory, etc. I appreciate that it did contain references, but noted that they were all forum postings (e.g. [4]). I appreciate your point, and will be much more circumspect with this criteria in the future.
   • Badener Greifs I tagged {{db-club}}. Speedy was removed with the comment, Appearing in the German Bowl and being in the top league in a country are both indications of possible notabality to me so speedy removed. I agree, that was incorrect.
   • Bright Eyes Sunglasses I tagged as {{db-spam}}, based on phrases exploding in popularity throughout the east coast of Australia, set it on the path to expansion again, reaching 120 stores throughout Australia and New Zealand. I also had concerns about unsourced BLP content, that he was running a large retail franchise proved to be beyond his skills. Thus, I conclude that it was not exclusively promotional, but I do feel that it would "need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I appreciate that A7 was not appropriate.
   • AMFJ, {{db-band}} - I thought that falkworld.net appeared to be a primary source, and rettir.is contains a copy of the same text. I may have missed the fact that grapevine.is appears valid, and I agree that this should not have been processed as a speedy deletion.
   • The Queen Project - I did not realise that the wikilinks to artists represented a claim to notability for a band; I know better now, and will not repeat that misake.

   In conclusion - I made mistakes. In the timeframe indicated, I believe that I tagged over a hundred other articles correctly (I will try to get stats on that) - but that is no excuse. I will be more careful. I understand the need for extreme caution in speedy deletion, and as stated in my acceptance, I will only delete truly blatantly inappropriate content under Speedy Deletion criteria. I understand that administrative deletion decisions require even more caution than tagging, as there is no natural 'second check'. If I possibly can, I will try to tag articles for CSD in the next few days, to demonstrate that I honestly will be ultra-careful in future. If more time is required for such proof, that's fine - I can simply withdraw from this RfA, it's no big deal. Thank you for highlighting those errors, which will help me to be more accurate in the future.  Chzz  ►  12:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   P.S. I've extracted the other 100+ CSD tagged articles, in case anyone wants to check them, here  Chzz  ►  15:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   I am impressed by your willingness to admit your mistakes, it's a really good thing in an admin to have. Unfortunately, I think my !vote has to stand, also per concerns voiced below by PeterSymonds and JamieS93. In the end, I think I can echo Hobit's neutral !vote's comment: I think you will be a good admin one day but you should wait a few months until the concerns raised have been addressed and your contributions reflect it. Regards SoWhy 11:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

   weak OpposeThere is alot here that i like. But i think the CSD still needs work as what SoWhy has outlined and may need some more work. The time we spend in nominating an article should reflect wether we truly feel we would delete it as an admin (which at this point i think the decisions by chzz are too rushed) We all make mistakes, Im just hesitant at this point for supporting and have a level of caution at this time. Ottawa4ever (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC) Striking and moving to neutral.Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Oppose. Chzz is a helpful editor, but is not level-headed when discussing things close to him. I remember this discussion regarding censorship on the main page. Despite the obvious opposition to that hook, Chzz continued to force his own opinion by approving the hook against consensus, regarding his own position as the legitimate one ("...it's clear from the discussion that there is no policy reason to prevent this from going ahead."). A similar discussion occurred here, again regarding his own opinion as the only legitimate one ("This sort of thing that is decided by the community via agreed policy. If you think that policy needs to change, then suggest changing it. In the meantime, please adhere to the policy.") I find Chzz too quick to consider his own opinion, or interpretation of policy, as a legitimate reason to act without consensus, and this is quite alarming for a potential administrator. I am thus opposed for now. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Yes I saw that discussion as well, but I guess I didn't see it in the same light as you. I saw Chzz arguing strongly for his position, and although there was evidence of some frustration on his part, I do not see anything problematic about his actions. For example he was perfectly civil, and kept his points related to the matter in hand. In the diff you quoted, Chzz is essentially correct; as far as I know there is no policy which relates to profanities or sexual content on the main page. There probably should be, because it is a topic which is debated quite often. I thought Chzz's arguments were quite persuasive in that discussion and he certainly wasn't alone in supporting that hook. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to comment. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Then we must agree to disagree, because I do find the edits problematic. Arguing strongly is one thing; going against consensus by tagging the hook is quite another. I appreciate his apology to Rjanag below, but even there, there is a mild sense of "I was right, you were wrong", which is concerning. I'm still uncomfortable, but thanks for letting me know your thoughts. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Very Weak Very Strong Oppose Hell No. I came here to support but, well, several of the issues noted above are, regrettably, concerning. Chzz has made some excellent contributions to the project, with a particular emphasis on excellent. However, the recent CSD mistaggings noted by SoWhy are a cause for concern, especially since Chzz intends to work in that administrative area. On top of that, the diffs noted by PeterSymonds, are definitely not a plus, but I guess we all have our own opinions - just try not to press them on others in the future. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 14:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   The concerns brought up by the latter opposes are very concerning. I'm sorry Chzz. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 21:51, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

   Sorry Chzz, but I'm afraid I cannot support someone who actively violates Wikipedia's core policy of no sockpuppetry and lies about it. -FASTILY_sock ^(TALK) 01:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

4. Strong oppose, I don't need to explain myself further. Oppose There is no denying that Chzz is a very helpful editor - and this is not to negate his boundless efforts with the welcoming and helping of newbies. However, I have several concerns and am agreeing with PeterSymonds. Some fairly recent actions, such the DYK hook, seem to indicate his underlying tendency to consider his own opinion higher than others. This could be problematic if he gains admin tools and starts making decisions contrary to consensus. I also have a general concern about his view on speedy deletion. Although it was a few months ago, I can't help but remember this incident. To give some background, new user Reahad created several one-line articles (I believe six) about notable individuals; Chzz tagged all of these pages under A1/A3. The application of "no context" in this case was questionable, and along with that, the author was actively starting to expand the articles, as promised in his edit summaries. I decided to decline the CSD tags and keep an eye on the situation, because it only made sense to let the author continue to expand his pages. During this time I had an off-wiki conversation where Chzz considered my use of "admin discretion" as bothersome, which in part led a wikibreak. This whole case, as an example, causes me to question his judgement and reactive tendencies. This is not meant as retaliation - rather, I'm just judging based on my past experiences with him, and it leads me to oppose. JamieS93 15:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Revisting: I agree with the concerns of Soap and others, and remain firm in my oppose. Something seems fishy with the account issues. JamieS93 22:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

   I will have to chew over this. I was pretty convinced 12 hours ago that this was sockpuppetry, or at best meatpuppetry. I'm glad that Chzz has given an explanation at the RfA talkpage, but to be frank I'm not sure what to believe at this point. To take it from a cautious angle: if you are indeed innocent, I sympathize that this mess had to occur. However, there is some strong evidence in the contrary, and even if this is not true sock/meatpuppetry, the amount of connection between your account and 龗 (and your influence on him/her) still raises serious concerns. JamieS93 14:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

   Oppose I'm sorry Chzz, I very rarely oppose, hate doing so and hope that with a bit more caution and empathy for the new contributors at speedy deletion we will see you again in three months or so. I'm mainly opposing per SoWhy, though with this additional example A world tour by Mary J Blige tagged as "No context". Also I'm a little concerned about your judgement; The Goatse thing that got you blocked was long ago, and I'd normally disreagard it, but the example PeterSymmonds gave was from this summer. ϢereSpielChequers 15:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   • In Chzz's defence, they were not the one who identified No More Drama World Tour as having no context. The article was originally tagged by User:Pontificalibus - at the time the article consisted of only a set list, as can be seen here. It would appear Chzz was merely reverting the removal of the CSD template by the article's original author, as indicated by their edit summary. AJCham 18:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Agreed, Chzz was only reapplying the CSD tag that shouldn't have been removed by the author. On the other hand, ϢereSpielChequers is not only opposing for that reason. -- Atama頭 23:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Fair point, yes the author shouldn't have removed that tag, but that newbie had only made twenty edits, and at the point that Chzz put the tag back on it was no longer a correct tag, and the article was in another deletion process. ϢereSpielChequers 00:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to support after checking more CSD examples. ϢereSpielChequers 18:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Oppose. The responses to SoWhy show that the candidate has not grasped some important principles of speedy delete despite having his errors pointed out and could not currently be trusted with the tools. You cannot determine that something is "exclusively promotional" because it contains spammy phrases. Speedy delete requires it to be entirely spam. If you remove the spam and the article still contains anything at all it is not a speedy candidate (at least not under G11). A deal more experience is required and some indication that the candidate understands the effect these decisions have on article contributors, especially new ones. I am also concerned that he seems to think that a long list of correctly tagged speedies makes up for the errors - it does not, it is better to let 100 bad articles live on for a little longer than to lose a single good new editor. SpinningSpark 17:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Please take into consideration the considerable efforts that I regularly go to in helping our newest contributors. (Random examples only; I'm too busy helping people right now to choose the 'best' ones)  Chzz  ►  19:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Okay, yeah, Chzz is definitely the last of 10 million accounts to be chasing away new editors, I suggest reading over contributions instead of making a very invalid assumption based on a few CSD links. Keegan (talk) 20:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   There is a problem here, in that it is assumed that just because an improper article gets deleted, the creator will automatically leave. This is not the case. Majorly talk 20:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   My oppose is based on Chzz's own responses in this RfA, not on "a few CSD links" and @Keegan it is you who are making an invalid assumption that I have not read over his contributions. @Majorly, no of course it is not guaranteed to happen (luckily) but can and does on enough occasions to make it an issue for me. SpinningSpark 21:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   You know, I don't usually chose to battle on RfAs, but this is a good point to do so.

   "You cannot determine that something is "exclusively promotional" because it contains spammy phrases. Speedy delete requires it to be entirely spam. If you remove the spam and the article still contains anything at all it is not a speedy candidate (at least not under G11)."

   Guess what? An administrator can make that determination. It's what keeps crap off of this website, a goal we've lost over the course of two years. In 2006, our general counsel at the time, Brad Patrick, declared war on spam articles. Why? Because they're not encyclopedic, Self promotion and "spammy phrases" are used to game Wikipedia and bolster SEO. And guess what else: I do not care about whether something is properly tagged or not. Take bureaucratic pushpins elsewhere, as well as the criteria nitpicking. This reasoning is everything that is wrong with Wikipedia, that offending spammers and self promoters is more important than maintaing encyclopedic integrity. Say it with me, everyone, ENCYCLOPEDIA. Not gently guiding spam, to which point I reiterate that Chzz has done more to help spammers keep their spam by making it into an article than you have edits. Yes, I am mad, and I hope the closing crat takes notice that it takes a lot to make me mad. Keegan (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Your incivility is uncalled for, entirely misrepresents what I said, and is unlikely to be helping your nominee a great deal. SpinningSpark 20:17, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

   Amen, Keegan. I could not agree more. JamieS93 22:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   And I couldn't disagree more :-D Please stop for a second before getting into a fight. It is not about SPAM - we all oppose that - it is about looking at benefits of wikipedia. Just an example: SPAMmers are often well educated and write decent articles (aiming to add their links there :-). Strip the ads and links, don't chop the whole thing right away unless necessary. This does happen and it does work. In other words, we may spill our emotions for our sake, but better keep cool heads for the sake of WP. Materialscientist (talk) 01:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

   Great, that is what Chzz does. Of all the G11 CSDs to cherry pick, this user is probably the most helpful to these users as possible. I have witnessed the user spend literally hours cleaning up spam articles to something reliable, and even then another user and another admin come along and kill it dead. Chzz is being unfairly painted as part of the problem when, in fact, she/he is the solution. This CSD stuff is bullocks. Keegan (talk) 02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

6. Oppose - Per CSD concerns and especially the specific responses. Candidate doesn't appear to approach CSD cautiously. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 17:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
7. Oppose Per CSD concerns, especially the ones raised by SoWhy. If you plan on working with CSD, you'll have to fine tune your tagging.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
8. OpposeStrong oppose - While there's nothing inherently wrong with having strong opinions and not always "going with the flow", I'm concerned that Chzz doesn't always know when to back off and defer to others, as evidenced by the discussion Peter referenced. I'm also concerned about the "there is no policy reason to prevent this" attitude - policy does not trump common sense. Comments like this make me wonder whether or not Chzz looks at situations from a practical, common sense point of view, or only "Policy says this, so do it." At one point in the discussion, another editor claims that he's applying common sense and Chzz dismisses it as WP:IDONTLIKEIT (which is, somewhat ironically, only an essay). Also, while it may have been worded differently in June (I didn't check), its not at all clear from the current wording that NOT#CENSORED would even apply to DYK hooks (calling into question Chzz's interpretation of it). Mr.Z-man 19:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Changed to strong oppose after reviewing the edit history of OnMobile. Chzz's edits did more to hamper the development of the article than to build it, particularly things like this near-blanking and this improper tagging with {{primarysources}}. AFACT, the only time Chzz added to the article was when he repeatedly inserted a "financial data" section with nothing but 2 sentences about the company's stock price recently dropping, with no context or other historical information. Mr.Z-man 22:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

9. Oppose per evasion of what I would consider the appropriate procedure to get the AbuseFilter editor right. Prodego ^talk 21:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Not to badger or anything, but how, exactly? I followed Chzz's request while it was happening, and did not see any noticeable problems with the way he handled it. Wikipedia:Edit filter states, in the lead: Presently, requests for assignment of the "Edit Filter managers" group to non-admins should be made at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter, where a discussion will be held for up to a week prior to a decision being made. What was done wrong here? Thanks, The Earwig (Talk | Contribs) 21:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   I'm going to ask Prodego to come back and respond to this, because it seems grossly unfair. As Earwig points out, Chzz did exactly what is described on the page in question. Prodego opposed this request (with essentially a WP:NONEED rationale) but his view was not supported by the other editors in the discussion. Chzz only went to ANI because no one would make a decision about the request for more than a month. Prodego: RfA is not the place to bring past grudges. If you had a problem with Xeno's decision then you should have taken it up with him. But there is absolutely nothing that the candidate did wrong here that I can see. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

10. Oppose per SoWhy's diffs on candidates CSD work. ArcAngel (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Oppose: I often disagree with ArcAngel but he is right on this call. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
12. Oppose Judgment issues + CSD concerns. Astronominov 12:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Oppose. CSD concerns as well as BLP concerns. I didn't see what I would like to see in regards to the answers to questions 6-8. The answers seemed very "politician"-y to me; carefully worded so as not to offend either side of the debate over them. Please do respond if you disagree with anything I said. NW (Talk) 21:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: Well, I for one would rather hear specific criticisms of the content of answers 6-8, rather than just sweeping generalisations over how they are worded. AJCham 22:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sure thing. "I hesitate to mention flagged revisions...I am not advocating flagged revs, but I am not dismissing the entire concept out of hand - considerable debate is needed.", which seem to me to try to attract both sides of the FR debate without stating his own opinion. Question 7 didn't even address the issue, which was clearly what he personally believes. (It sounds like he would not accede to the subject that often, though I could be wrong because of the vagueness of it. If my assumption is true, that is another thing that I dislike. Since he would be closing AfDs as an administrator, that is sufficient cause by itself to oppose.) In addition, the entire answer to Q8 completely ignored what he would do in response to the subject, except for a tiny "I would carefully consider their views, particularly in respect of the exception in no-consensus noted above," which is far too vague to truly tell me anything. I hope that helps, NW (Talk) 23:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

    Response Re. Flagged revisions - my own opinion is: it depends on the implementation. If it was the use of flagged protection as an alternative to semi-prot, to restrict editing by non-autoconfirmed users, then I'd probably approve. If it was across-the-board patrolled revisions, I'd disapprove. There are myriad options between, and it needs thinking about.

    Re. Q7 and Q8, I have now added clarification.

    I've done my best to respond. It something is still vague, please let me know. If you still disagree with my views, that's fine. Thanks for the feedback, either way.  Chzz  ►  06:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Striking oppose; moving to nowhere. NW (Talk) 00:15, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

13. Oppose I like the candidate, but the only way to know if someone understands the use of speedy deletion is to see how they work with them in real situations. The mistakes made are simply too many, and are in due both to misunderstanding of the rules and also to not carefully reading the article. Rules can be learned quickly, but a tendency to work too hastily can be a sticky problem. I would not want to support without seeing evidence that there has actually been improvement, in say, 3 or 4 months from now. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
14. Strongest Possible Oppose per CSD concerns. You say you have good "stats" with respect to CSD tagging? Could not believe you would seriously say that in an RfA. Ouch. Furthermore, Question 19 casts a dark, dark shadow over this RFA, and calls the whole thing into question. You flat out lied. Wow. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    And I could not believe you would seriously expect someone to be totally perfect! Show me an admin that has a 100% record on getting CSD's right, and I'll show you a liar. Jeni ^(talk) 14:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Where did Crotchety Old Man say that he was expecting 100% perfection? Mr.Z-man 14:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Didn't ask for perfection, just didn't expect such a flippant attitude towards one of the more important aspects of Wikipedia. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though. Strawmen arguments are always fun. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    When you imply that 94% accuracy is so far short of good that it surprises you, you can expect others to question that. If we only accepted admins with better than 95% accuracy in all fields, we'd be left with Jimbo on his own :) --RexxS (talk) 17:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Nobody is examining "all fields", just CSD tagging, a field that the candidate has expressed an interest in. And 94% is the maximum; we're assuming SoWhy actually reviewed all 100 and not just a sample, or the ones that weren't deleted. Its possible that others were bad taggings but deleted anyway. Mr.Z-man 17:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, we are examining all fields, because I'm absolutely certain that if Chzz had been less than perfect in other fields, somebody would have brought it up by now - wouldn't you agree? The 94% is neither a maximum nor minimum, just a best estimate: it's equally possible that all the unreviewed edits were perfect, so the proportion would be more than 94%. --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    No, I don't assume that people have done something that they didn't say they did. Its assumptions like that that lead to screwups because "I thought you did that." According to Chzz's own estimate, he tagged ~100 articles in the period that SoWhy reviewed, so, assuming he was correct there (as its certainly not in his best interest to underestimate that), a minimum 6 errors means a maximum 94% accuracy. Mr.Z-man 04:02, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

15. Strong Oppose I wrote the Everything (software) article, my first. I was astonished at how quickly the thing was tagged for destruction, two days, but what really floored me was that two days after he lost his bid for Speedy Deletion, he returned and reduced the article to one sentence, a link to the publisher's website, and some intra-Wikipedia links, then recommended that it be deleted for lack of notability and for blatant advertising. I called it vandalism then, and I stand by that statement. Today he returned and tagged it as Original Research, deciding perhaps that the author of the software should say more and not less, and marking his addition as a Minor Edit to avoid review. This is clearly a guy that stops at nothing to get his own way, an editorial Alexander slicing through his Wikipedian knot. Too quick to cut really, for a collaborative publication that depends at least in part on the participation of amateur writers. It would be a serious mistake to trust this individual to judiciously exercise any authority given him. Perhaps he was only plumping for his upcoming election, but is that really better than petty vindictiveness? Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I understand that it's galling to have your first efforts seemingly dismissed, but this isn't the place to bring that sort of baggage. The facts are: the article makes no claim of notability and the only references offered are links to the software author's posts on a forum. Chzz did exactly the right thing by proposing a speedy G11, which was declined by another editor. He then removed content that was not referenced to reliable sources. What was left was undoubtedly a candidate for a proposed deletion. Chzz correctly made the proposal ({{prod}}), and you replaced it with a {{hangon}} completely out of process. I'm sorry, but nobody who reviews the article history is going to find fault with Chzz's actions there. --RexxS (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    That article should be taken to Articles for Deletion unless you can come up with some reliable sources to show notability. In addition, if you're the author of the software you clearly have a conflict of interest and probably shouldn't be editing the article. -- Atama頭 00:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    I'm the author of the article, not the author of the software application. What I know is what I've read, and I cited what I read that was relevant. (Incidentally, I challenge your reasoning, Atama - an author's identity is relevant, and should be disclosed if there's a conflict, but are the authors writing for Foreign Affairs unreliable sources because they're interested parties?) To be clear - my effort wasn't "seemingly dismissed", it was summarily dismissed without comment. I apologize for violating your editorial process, but I didn't understand that "my talk" was really your talk that I should review. When I did, I found the Notice for Speedy Deletion and followed its instructions. As to notability, this is your playground and you can decide as you like, but if this developer had filed with the USPTO instead of posting on his forum he'd have a U.S. patent in hand now. What he did was very clever and innovative, evident to any practitioner skilled in the art, which is why I took the time to add the article. None of this, though, is to the point. The point is, your man seemed intent on deleting it as quickly as possible without opportunity for comment or oversight, and from what I've read here it isn't the first such incident. I related an incident that illustrates problematic behavior. Please don't make me the problem here. Yappy2bhere (talk) 03:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Comment: It was more than galling. It is exactly the sort of action that hurts Wikipedia. We alienate hundreds of gifted editors. Every time an article is deleted, the contributions that were made to it are lost. Wikipedia administrators can access the information in deleted articles, but they are not necessarily experts on the article's topic. Once an article is deleted, its content, value and appropriateness can no longer be evaluated by the general public.

    In addition, the contributor who writes a poor article on a notable topic is likely to be inexperienced. If their first efforts are deleted, they may be discouraged and refrain from creating further articles, or even editing. Everyone starts somewhere and we should encourage better writing and better articles. Good faith efforts to contribute should be met with encouragement to improve. We need to encourage our editor, not drive them away from Wikipedia!

    A common axiom is that "AFD is not cleanup". Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted.

    The question on whether a poor but improvable article ought to be deleted is a major point of contention, and has given rise to the wiki-philosophies immediatism and eventualism. I realise that mine is a minority position. Also this is not a personal attack on what is for me a nightmare Candidate. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    But what would you have us do with non-notable articles, whether poor, indifferent or good? Does Wikipedia need a high quality article on my two cats? I could knock it up at B-class quite quickly, complete with lead, structure, references (to my website) and images. The issue here was lack of notability, not lack of quality. --RexxS (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Anybody with two cats is OK with me - even if he sees things differently. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Well, the article has now been nominated for deletion, and I am now incorrectly credited in the article as the author of the software application and of publishing original research. One more flag, boys, and we'll have more flags than article. Hilarious! Do all your meetings end in a pie fight? Again, it was only introduced to illustrate what in my opinion was unacceptable behavior in a potential Wikipedia authority. Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Although I agree the article should probobly be sent to AfD, I am not positive that Chzz made the right decision when he deleted all but the first sentance and than marked it PROD again. I would have preferred and supported seeing him PROD or AfD the article with the content intact. I think the user's response is a little overblown, but understandable. From all appearances, it does seem that Chzz removed content to improve his position that the article should be deleted. However, like I said, I would have supported deletion even with the content intact.--TParis00ap (talk) 01:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Whilst there is an issue regarding the alienation of new contributors, as has been noted at several points in this RFA, Chzz is one of the solutions to that problem, not a cause. Yappy2bhere may feel they had a poor experience, but through their work responding to {{helpme}} requests, in the Help Channel and at Articles for Creation Chzz has guided and encouraged far more newcomers into becoming valuable and happy contributors than they may have dissuaded.

    Regarding the specific edits to Everything (software), I believe that the removal of unreferenced, unencyclopaedic content and the proposed deletion were both valid edits, but will acknowledge that it may have been slightly better for Chzz to merely do one or the other, rather than both. Even still, I don't think there is any significant impropriety here, as the article was no more valuable with the content intact, and I too would have supported the proposed deletion whether it was there or not. AJCham 02:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

16. Oppose, per PeterSymonds. Concerns over policy interpretation as a result of previous interactions. –blurpeace ^(talk) 03:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    oppose absolutely no reason for chzz to be an admin!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smokey joes cafe (talk • contribs) 08:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Welcome, Smokey joes cafe, I see you started editing five days ago, I hope you enjoy it and keep it up. I think people might confuse you with User:SmokeyJoe. - Dank (push to talk) 15:48, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Smokey joes cafe (talk · contribs) is unconnected and unknown to me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    (checkuser note) sock blocked, vote indented. Brandon (talk) 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

17. Oppose per CSD concerns. Too many mistakes too recently. Rami R 09:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Also concerning are Q15, Q19 and Soap's oppose. Rami R 18:55, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

18. Oppose From my review of Chzz's article writing, I am not convinced that Chzz adequately understands Wikipedia's copyright policy. Far too many instances of places where Chzz has slightly tweaked a word or two in an attempt to paraphrase the source. Here are some examples (there are others):

    Compare these additions to the source:

    "Preliminary inquiries revealed that the boat was overloaded, with 12 people on the upper deck." vs "The preliminary inquiry by the Crime Branch revealed that the ill-fated boat was overloaded with 12 persons on the upper deck."

    "Under questioning, Anish revealed that additional tourists were accommodated on the upper deck, contradicting Samual, who claimed that the sudden movement of tourists was the cause" vs "The Crime Branch had questioned Anish, who revealed that additional tourists were accommodated on the upper deck, “contradicting” the driver's stand that the sudden movement of tourists to one side resulted in the imbalance on one side, leading to the accident."

    "A Crime Branch official said that the survivors testimonies would also be considered before submitting a final report. The Crime Branch of Kottyam led by the Superintendent of Police collected evidence, and were also seeking details from the survivors from outside Kerala." vs "An official of the Crime Branch in Thekkady said that the versions of the survivors would also be considered before submitting the final report. The Crime Branch, Kottyam, led by the Superintendent of Police, had collected evidence on the spot and would also seek details from the survivors from outside Kerala. "

    "The driver was charged with causing death unintentionally. Crime Branch sources said that the arrested will be produced before the Magistrate Court at Peerumade, in the evening" vs. "The case charged against the driver was for causing death unintentionally. Crime Branch sources said that the arrested will be produced before the Magistrate Court at Peerumade, in the evening. "

    "Two of the dead, Abhilash and Apoorva from Hyderabad, were handed over to the relatives by 10.30 p.m. on Sunday. Their parents Sunnur and Malathy survived the accident...The boat was recovered and brought to the dock in Thekkady." vs. "The body of Abhilash and Apoorva — from Hyderabad — were handed over to the relatives by 10.30 p.m. on Sunday. Their parents Sunnur and Malathy had survived the accident...The ill-fated boat owned by the Kerala Tourism Development Corporation was brought to the boat landing station in Thekkady."

    Diff http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Lydia_Foy&diff=273775787&oldid=273717480

    "She was also seeking a declaration that the practice of using biological indicators existing at the time of birth to determine sex for the purposes of registration was ultra vires (outside the powers) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Act 1863" [5] vs "They sought a declaration that the practice of using biological indicators existing at the time of birth to determine sex for the purposes of registration was ultra vires (outside the powers) of the Births and Deaths Registration (Ireland) Act 1863"

    "In an affidavit, Dr Foy said that she was, at birth, a congenitally disabled woman. She argued that while her birth certificate continued to assert erroneously that she was male, she would be incapable of exercising her constitutionally protected right to marry, and that nothing in the 1863 Act or in the regulations required sex be determined by biological criteria alone." "In an affidavit, Dr Foy said that she was, at birth, a congenitally disabled woman...While her birth certificate continued to assert erroneously that she was male, she would be incapable of exercising her constitutionally protected right to marry. ...nothing in the 1863 Act or in the regulations that required sex to be determined by biological criteria only." from http://www.pfc.org.uk/node/973 again.

    I would advise Chzz to spend more time developing article writing skills, focusing specifically on paraphrasing sources properly to avoid copyright violations. TwilligToves (talk) 14:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    (IP !vote indented) Oppose The damage he did to the Brickwork article on April 3 was highly obnoxious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.159.76 (talk) 10:03, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Sorry but IPs are not allowed to !vote in RFAs. Regards SoWhy 10:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

    Comment re emails: I seemed to have touched a nerve in my comment. (See above) Without breaking confidentiality, I think it would be fair to say the candidate has done some damage (see CAT:CSD) - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

19. Oppose because of your evasive answers to the questions on this RfA.

    On Mentifisto's RfA there were one or two suspicious oppose !votes (depending on how you view each one). One of these votes, Jdzooks, earlier identifies herself as your sister. Even if she is not actually your sister, it seems highly likely that the account is someone you know and after such a long period of inactivity must have been alerted to the RfA by you. Therefore I cannot believe you when you say in Question 15 that you had nothing to do with that vote. I'm considering Darkspartan's vote to be a lesser concern, although I do notice that it's his only RfA !vote as present and that the preceding edit was to your talkpage.

    The edits from the 龗 account worry me a bit as well; I have to assume this person is someone with whom you are in regular in-person contact, since you have shown that you sometimes share the computer with them, and their edit history seems remarkably knowledgeable for such a new account. Their first edit was to add Twinkle to their monobook, and immediately afterward they began regularly voting in AfD's and RfA's just like a well-experienced user would. In fact, when I first saw them back in June, I simply assumed they were a legitimate alt account of somebody who had wanted to RTV and resolved to watch their contributions just to be sure. But then the account became fairly inactive and I forgot about them until now. Since it is impossible for anyone to prove either that 龗 is you or that it isn't, I can only express that I feel you have some influence on this account and adding administrator rights to your account without knowing more about it would make me uncomfortable. I wish I could support, but if these things were happening on anyone else's RfA, I would have placed my oppose vote without hesitation. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

20. Oppose Too many issues involving potential secondary account influence here, per Soap and Q19, together with Q15 issues. In a word –trust. Leaky Caldron 17:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
21. Oppose per Soap and I don't believe your answers to questions 15 and 19. RMHED (talk) 18:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
22. Sorry, too many concerns have been brought up in opposition. Majorly talk 19:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
23. Oppose. Something fishy is going on with this user and other accounts. With no adequate attempt by Chzz to explain what's going on I cannot support. --JayHenry (talk) 21:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Also I believe that crying wolf about censorship does a great deal to undermine the genuine efforts to prevent censorship. This is the nature of crying wolf and of moral panics — ultimately self-sabotaging. --JayHenry (talk) 21:16, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    I simply don't believe the explanation. It may, like a movie (Titanic seems apt, because of the sinking), be loosely based on a true story. But there's too much implausibility to think of it as anything but a work of fiction. --JayHenry (talk) 16:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

24. Oppose Pending a very good explanation for what appears to be abusive socks. Likewise, you're hamfisted attempt to cover it up explain it away convinces me that you're probably dishonest. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
25. Oppose per CSD tagging concerns which I've now had a chance to review in detail, and other concerns raised above.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
26. Oppose per sock concerns per above. --Rschen7754 (T C) 23:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
27. OpposeSeems to be unanswered questions concerning alternative accounts brought up by opposers. Off2riorob (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
28. Crap, sorry Chzz, I have to move to oppose "per WTF from co-nom" (see Q19), Q15, Soap, and also partly per TwilligToves. Conceivably a checkuser/crat could help sort out the mess, but it's probably too late in the game for that. I would have no trouble at all voting for you after 6 months if there are no future similar issues, assuming you're cooperative in giving the voters the information they need in the next RfA, and I'm sure you will be. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC) ... And now also per the SPI. Oops. Not looking good. - Dank (push to talk) 03:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
29. Per (i) this DYK diff by PeterSymonds. Putting that hook on the main page might surely discredit wikipedia and clearly pushing to do that was against all formal and informal policies. Thinking about well-being of WP is a must and one fault of this kind could cost too much. Per (ii) unexplained Q19. I've slept over this and realized that with all my admire to Chzz's enormous dedication and hard work for WP, I can't advise admin privileges until the case is explained. Materialscientist (talk) 23:47, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
30. Oppose per concerns voiced by other users above. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 00:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
31. Oppose - sorry, but the CU evidence destroyed it. I really wanted to support but, yeah. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:21, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
32. Oppose per Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship.2FChzz_.28Moved_from_Talk:RfA.29 and the answer to Q5. AniMate^draw 00:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
33. Oppose (move from support) We have recently two sockpuppetry incidents of administrators, no more drama with that needed.--Caspian blue 00:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
34. Oppose - Chzz spends a considerable amount of time trying to help new contributors, but after reading and finding out about his 龗 account, I'm going to have to oppose. He double voted in a few occasions that I found, such as Ched's RFA and Keegan's OS election (at least attempted in that one, but wasn't able to due to the requirements for accounts to vote). Killiondude (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
35. Oppose per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Chzz. Am willing to await the editor's explanation before making other comments, but further action outside RFA may be appropriate here. Durova³⁵¹ 02:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
36. Oppose Obviously. I would probably support a community ban here, too. — Jake Wartenberg 02:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
37. Per checkuser findings. Undisclosed sockpuppetry. —Dark 02:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Please note that 龗's first edit was to add Twinkle and Friendly to his javascript. Hardly the activities of a new editor. —Dark 02:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

38. Oppose per sock issues. Would be willing to change if there's a convincing explanation, but until then opposing. --Bfigura ^(talk) 02:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
39. Oppose, per sockpuppetry, and more. On this very page you have declared "guess I'm not very good at 'socking' :-)", "I have never made any other edits with any other accounts", "Nothing to hide here; I appreciate how important this is", and even when tackled, you brush it off as "wonderfully ironic". Assuming this sudden row is not all a tragic misunderstanding, that is audiacious dishonesty and betrayal of trust, and obviously, totally unbecoming of an administrator. I can't support an admin who would consider themself quietly above the rules (though I like WP:ROUGE and the rest, which are all in good fun). Before this, I was watching this RfA and have been quietly dismayed by your drive-by truncations of articles without trying to add to them (e.g., [6]). Sorry. :-( I will change to a weak oppose if there is a convincing explanation for your connection with 龗, though I'm not foreseeing one. • Anakin ^(talk) 02:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
40. I was not planning on participating in any RfA's for the next month unless I felt strongly for/against a candidate (or I simply couldn't resist a pile-on). My gut reaction would have been to support; I've seen Chzz's name around and I thought he'd be good for the role. But given the socking evidence, particularly the double voting, I have to oppose. His response and further evidence proving his identity to be the same as that of 龗 (Hiberniantears's question, the vote at Keegan's OS election) demonstrate that it is very unlikely to be anybody other than him. If Chzz has indeed socked, then I would hope that he admits to it, apologizes, and promises not to do it again. I oppose a site ban in this case because other than this debacle, he's done great work and I hope he continues. Master&Expert (Talk) 03:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
41. Move from support. Sorry, but having alternate accounts is one thing. Lying about them when directly asked is another issue. Sorry. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
42. Oppose per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chzz/Archive Nancy ^talk 04:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
43. Oppose due to socking issues. I was ready to support, but then this happens. Abuse of undisclosed sockpuppets is absolutely not to be tolerated, especially for an admin. Chzz has done some great work around the project, but this is a dealbreaker. The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
44. Oppose: CSD, close paraphrasing, etc. - all these can be fixed with experience. What can't be fixed is the betrayal felt if a candidate fails to disclose socking. I've reviewed the contributions of both users and it is clear that 龗's edits occur in blocks that exactly fit into gaps in Chzz's edits. It means that the two accounts never edited at the same time, making the possibility of internet café or library, etc. very unlikely. --RexxS (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
45. Oppose per socking issues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
46. Oppose. Has gone out of his way to show that he cannot be trusted. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
47. Strongest Possible Oppose moved from support The recent sock issues just killed it for me. Particularly with the recent higher-profile sockings and all. And you dug yourself into a deeper hole by apparently lied about it. Until It Sleeps ^alternate 05:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
48. Oppose (originally support, then neutral) for the sockpuppetry. Crafty (talk) 05:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
49. Oppose Mostly per the socking issues, but also PeterSymonds' concerns, and the CSD problems.--Res2216firestar 05:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
50. Oppose - Per my criteria. Absolutely not, I'm rather happy that you accidentally edited with 龗 so that this was able to come out. Good luck with trying to run again. --Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
51. Oppose The possible socking does not augur well. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
52. Oppose, the failure to address the sockpuppetry issue is not acceptable. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
53. On account of the sockpuppetry.  Sandstein  06:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
54. Moved from Support to Strong Oppose due to sockpuppetry. Sole Soul (talk) 06:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
55. Oppose Regretful oppose per the socking concern - we don't want that in an admin. Pmlineditor ∞ 08:28, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
56. Oppose - Very disappointed about this, but I have to oppose. We've had too many problems with sockpuppetry among new administrators. -- Atama頭 09:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
57. Infinitely sorry ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
58. Oppose - When I saw Chzz's name here, I thought that I might be able to support (I've come across the candidate quite often on the Help Desk when answering questions), but the sockpuppetry concerns prevent me from supporting. The fact that the candidate appears to be lying about alternate accounts, and some of the edits involved means that I just cannot support this candidate without a very good explanation (which I can find acceptable) from Chzz -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 12:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
59. Oppose Echo concerns of sockpuppetry above. AtheWeatherman 14:04, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
60. Oppose removed my support earlier hoping for a logical explanation of the sockpuppet issue. After reviewing all the information Chzz's explanation does not give a logical explanation of the issue. SpinningSpark does a great job of summarizing the issues, there are to many unexplained issues left. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
61. Oppose One editor, one vote. Anything less subverts fairness (Justice) which should be an administrators bedrock. Not a good beginning.--Buster7 (talk) 14:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
62. Strong Oppose I don't recall ever voting oppose on an RFA before. But I am deeply concerned about the almost certain (in my mind) illegal use of a sockpuppet account in the vote for an oversighter (both Chzz and the sock 龗 voted the same way on the vote page, HUGE no-no). The explanation that Chzz shares a private computer with somebody that Chzz doesn't know well, simply smells funny to me. Since I can't trust Chzz because of this, I can not support. I do note that this user has done great work and I hope tries RFA again after a year of more good work w/o socks or other issues. --mav (talk) 15:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
63. Strong oppose I am concerned over the 龗 account. I don't feel answers have been straight forward or complete. They are simply "He is someone else who used my computer." The user claims their account is secure and always logs out, however that would imply they always log in. I don't see how if they are so used to logging in that when they returned to their computer and tried to login they would not notice already being logged in as 龗. Even if the user proves they are not 龗, that still would not alleviate my concerns. I could have stayed neutral pending the outcome of checkuser if the security concerns were not present. Granted there is no evidence that their account has been compromised, but it is hard to prove it has and it is hard to prove it won't happen in the future. The user has admitted to unsecure habits and has given poor answers attempting to suggest some security mindset. However, if the user manages to prove (unknown how) that they can keep their account secure, I may reconsider.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
64. Strong Oppose. Yikes. When I last looked at this RFA, I was unsure how to vote; there were some concerns with CSD issues and treatment of newbies, but it didn't seem quite strong enough to demand an oppose, so I decided to wait and come back later. Now the candidate's the subject of a sockpuppet investigation! Whatever's going on there, combined with the prior issues, that tips it right into Strong Oppose for me. I cannot say I trust this user. Robofish (talk) 15:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
65. Oppose per the sockpuppet incident. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
66. Very reluctant oppose. I'm sorry Chzz - I came here to offer my utmost support once I saw that you were running for adminship, but after seeing the sockpuppet investigation, I have to oppose your adminship. I'm truly sorry, and I wish the best of luck to you. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 16:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
67. Strong oppose There's no doubt that Chzz has been an excellent contributor and hopefully will continue to be a good editor. That said, the entire sockpuppetry issue has basically resulted in a significant lack of community trust in Chzz, and community trust is necessary for adminship. At this point, I think the trust issue has crossed the line from "fishiness" to completely disbelieving some of Chzz's contrived explanations. Chzz claims that User:龗 is an individual he doesn't know very well, but one with whom he has had conversations concerning Wikipedia. In spite of this, the 龗 account was confirmed by Rlevse as a sock – i.e. connected to Chzz at more than just that one point in time (the questioned edit to this Rfa, where Chzz changed the signature to a response). In fact, Rlevse has said, "What I found on CU goes way, way beyond chance level." Chzz's explanations for these issues are not convincing in the least. TParis00ap also makes an excellent point above. Just one of the many holes in Chzz's story: If he was used to logging in and logging out rather than staying logged in, why didn't he notice that his computer (to wit, his private computer) was already logged in as 龗? Furthermore, if he doesn't know 龗 very well, why is the 龗 account based off of Chzz's private computer? As Spinningspark wisely noted, 龗 shows a lot of the signs of a sockpuppet: editing within gaps in Chzz's editing, participating only in areas that Chzz was also interested in. I'm not convinced at all by Chzz's attempts at explaining himself, and I'm disappointed to learn that a generally positive contributor like Chzz is involved in such behavior. Chzz's explanation regarding User:Jdzooks (see Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Chzz#Jdzooks here) is also extremely contrived and unconvincing. In light of all of the above, his answers to questions 15, 19, and 21 are apparently untruthful; I thus deem Chzz untrustworthy and cannot support his RfA. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
68. Oppose per the sockpuppetry concerns and results of CheckUser. Ray^Talk 16:49, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
69. Oppose per sock issues and CU results. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
70. Oppose for confirmed abusive sockpuppetry (see SPI and comments by CU Rlevse here). Clearly this RFA shouldn't and won't pass; the only question is whether further action is required for betrayal of community trust and that of good-faith RFA supporters. Abecedare (talk) 17:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
71. Oppose. The explanation provided by Chzz is insufficient and leaves far too many questions unanswered. There are far too many coincidences here to be explained away by "it's someone I know, although not very well, who happens to use my computer A LOT". The fact that Chzz did not mention this before hand and tried to cover it up by switching the signatures is also not convincing in a forum where you are trying to demonstrate that you hold the community's trust. Based on Rlevse's findings, and the timing and editing style reports provided by other users on the talk page, this would be an easy  Confirmed result at SPI, where the sockmaster would likely be blocked for a few weeks if not indefinitely. I know Chzz does good work here, and I would very much like to be convinced that this isn't a case of abusive sockpuppetry, but the evidence against Chzz is making a lot more sense than Chzz's defense, and I still have a nagging feeling there's something we're not being told. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:52, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    If as is being commented, there has been confirmed abusive sockpuppetry then this RFA should really be closed and perhaps a RFC User opened. Off2riorob (talk) 17:58, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

72. Oppose Again, (as I comment in removing my support above) I suggest Chzz withdraw asap. Even given the extra time extended to this Rfa, it is obviously going to fail due to concerns around sockpuppeting. Innocent or not, it looks real bad. Chzz, if innocent, should make an effort in clearing his name, and working to rebuild community trust. As of now, my own reaction is one of shock. Few people enjoy being wrong; it is clear to me I was way off-base in my support. This will have the long-term effect of making me much more suspicious re: Rfa votes in the future. Jusdafax 18:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
73. Oppose over sockpuppetry concerns. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:45, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
74. Oppose A few minutes checking out Everything (software) edit history and saw this is not a person you want as an admin. SunCreator (talk) 18:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
75. Strong Oppose The socks are enough to warrant a strong oppose, but the swiss cheese-like explanation is insulting. JPG-GR (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
76. Oppose Sorry, too many concerns. Pikiwyn ^talk 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Neutral: Chzz is a superb editor, and I am a great admirer of their work. I was thrilled when I heard they'd finally agreed to stand for adminship, and saw myself supporting in a heartbeat. However, the objections raised by SoWhy are difficult to ignore. I've come across many pages tagged for deletion by Chzz, and don't usually see problems, so would guess that valid taggings far outweigh the errors. In spite of the errors, Chzz would almost certainly be a huge net-positive, but I think I will wait a while and see what other comments arise, before deciding whether to move to support. AJCham 10:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Moved back to neutral due to issues with User:龗, and Chzz's subsequent silence. A very good explanation is required. Were this any other user I would have opposed, but can't bring myself to do that with an editor that I have had such admiration for. Sorry, Chzz. AJCham 02:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral - hmm... I came to support, but those CSD tags are a bit troubling... I'll come back later to see if the questions convince me.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 12:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Supporting--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 21:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

2. Neutral. Really would like to support here. Chzz is very dedicated as many have noted, but the first part of Peter's oppose is a sticking point for me. I'm afraid there may be some problems with Chzz's sometimes rigid approach to things. Gigs (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Changed to supportNeutral. Hmm, tough one this rfa. Chzz, no doubt is a fantastic editor and a valued contributor and thus, as many above, I was eager to support. However, the concerns raised are indeed, pretty disconcerting and major errors. I would not really mind if it was a one off, or a long time ago, and would still readily support. In this case, I feel the errors are fairly frequent and recent, as shown by SoWhy. The concerns raised by Peter Symonds and Jamie further push me away from supporting and thus, I am neutral. AtheWeatherman 18:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   (moved to support) Neutral (but leaning support): You're a very productive editor and, as far as I can remember, civil even in heated discussions. But in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 47#Appropriate for the main page? a few months ago, I found you quick to play the "censorship" card to discredit your opponents' view, and making a bold attempt to pass a disputed DYK hook (PeterSymonds' diff above) did not seem like good judgment to me. That being said, I'm still leaning support because 1) that was a while ago, and just one incident; and 2) there's no reason to oppose just because you have a different viewpoint than me (about what's appropriate on the main page), I was mostly just bothered by the way you defended it rather than the viewpoint itself. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Reply Glad to see you here, rʨanaɢ, because frankly I don't know how to respond to the comments about our censorship debate without getting into the tl;dr crux of that specific matter - and this isn't the place. I'm rather hoping that you'll agree that in the discussion, we both aired our views clearly, and with respect for each others opinions. The edit was not a serious attempt to pass the hook against consensus - it was indented directly below your own delete vote; a misguided attempt at pointing out that we both had a perfect right to state our opinion. I stick to the principle that we must not shy away from discussing difficult matters, and I feel that editors prepared to discuss such controversial topics are bound to come in for these kinds of query in RfA - if I'd been huggling instead, I'd probably be in a better position. So - to clarify - I regret that specific edit; it was misguided - but if that is the worst of me, in the midst of such exchanges, then I rest easy. I hope that others will evaluate our discussion, and that their !vote will not be coloured because their opinion differs from my own. I'm heartened to hear that you separate differing viewpoints from voting decisions, and I sincerely apologise for the inappropriate edit. Best,  Chzz  ►  20:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Thanks for the message, chzz. I agree that both our edits, at the time, were probably a bit too BOLD, but things worked out ok in the end, and you've clearly thought about it. Moving to support... I still don't agree, of course, with your views about main page stuff, but that doesn't change the fact that you're a major contributor and have lots of experience with the project; besides, one small (and civil, compared to much of this project!) dispute isn't worth opposing a good candidate over. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

3. Neutral: While I have not interacted much with Chzz in recent months, my extended interaction with him back in March related to the article OnMobile and other editors concerns about his CSD tagging has me concerned that he will be a little too quick on the delete button. The OnMobile issue came up when he tagged the article as spam. I declined the speedy as I thought that the article was a mess, but not blatant spam. I cleaned up the article a little and tagged it for additional cleanup. I received a message from Chzz asking me to reconsider my decline citing WP:COMMONSENSE which I found a bit odd. My exchange with Chzz about the tag and decline is a bit easier to follow reading his archive. After this, we both ended up editing the article and I felt that Chzz was being overly aggressive in trying to lead the article towards failing to meet notability requirements or removing what he perceived as spam. I point to the article history and the talk page for details. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   Wow, that was back in the days when I couldn't afford a colour signature! In fairness, Gogo Dodo, by 10 March 2009 I had made <3000 edits; I've now made >30,000. I've learned a lot since then - and I certainly learned from that exchange. Perhaps my more recent, patient work with conflict of interest cases might help, such as BurkeGuy 1 2 3 4 5 6 (happy ending) or Epstein School (2, now going well here). If I can possibly clarify further, please feel free to ask - and thanks again for your guidance, back in the good old days of black and white!  Chzz  ►  01:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

4. Neutral - I have only seen Chzz as helpful, but the CSD stuff worries me. Also, some of the links suggest that Chzz might become a bit hot-headed at times. If Chzz works on the two issues stated above, he will make a fine admin. Airplaneman ^talk 23:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

   I AM NOT HOT-HEADED! :-) Sorry, I couldn't resist that. Airplaneman, I appreciate your concerns, and I assure you that, whilst I certainly believe in stating my views, I do not make any rash decisions -and I absolutely, utterly would never use my adminship to impose my own views - I abhor that type of thing. Please note the DYK diff in the context of that whole debate, and note that the person I was debating with is in the 'support' column. As has been pointed out, the errors in CSD tagging a) represent a very tiny fraction of my contributions, and b) tagging is not the same as deleting. Either way, thanks for airing your opinion.  Chzz  ►  18:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

5. Neutral I've not run across Chzz for quite a while, but I always found him to be a joy to interact with. The issues raised by SoWhy and others indicte that perhaps a few more months are needed before becoming an admin. Fix those problems and I'll support the next time around! Hobit (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral You're a strong editor overall, and I appreciate Keegan's view regarding CSD, but the incident at DYK is rather disturbing as it shows your willingness to go against consensus and also take action in matters where you are personally involved. If this passes I strongly suggest using the tools with discernment when you are an involved editor. I think you'll be a good admin if you always remember to use common sense and back off if any administrative action would be debatable. ThemFromSpace 15:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

   Comment Oh, absolutely, Themfromspace. Please, please understand that that specific diff was honestly in no way an attempt to circumvent due process - notice it was indented directly below an oppose; it was, as stated, a misguided way of trying to point out that rʨanaɢ had no more right than I did to make the decision. I have duly apologized for it, and rʨanaɢ has accepted the apology.  Chzz  ►  18:31, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

   Ok, I've reviewed the situation more and I think it was an honest mistake, which we all make. Moving to support. ThemFromSpace 20:17, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

6. Neutral Ditto Unionhawk and Airplaneman. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 17:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

   Moved to oppose.Neutral The concerns voiced above gave me pause, but not enough for a no vote. At the same time,not enough with the answer to my question to push me to a yes vote either at this point. If he doesn't make it this time, I expect I and some other voters will support w/some more strong performance in a next round.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

7. Can't support with the concerns raised but I don't feel my opinion warrants an oppose either.  GARDEN  14:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Good reasons to support, but I'm a bit worried by some of the opposers' questions, as there are a lot of diverse reasons here and not just repetitions of one rationale as is common on some RfA's. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 19:59, 29 October 2009 (UTC)Switched to oppose -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 14:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

   Neutral Leaning toward support. I've bumped into Chzz many many times and have found him to be smart and knowledgable. I would trust him with the tools and I don't think he'd abuse them. However, I am concerned by Jaime's question and I'd like to see the answer before moving to support.--TParis00ap (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)Switching to oppose. I will leave an explanation there.--TParis00ap (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

8. Neutral I have some worries over csd but they repreasent a small number compared to the other excellent work that is done, especiilay with the help provided to new comers. I do not think i will oppose the nomination for adminship. Ottawa4ever (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

   Moving to support Neutral. In general the candidate appears to be well-intentioned and dedicated. I have reservations however, regarding the incident as described by PeterSymonds. The extremist anti-discretion view espoused at that forum, coupled with active measures to override consensus is concerning. —Finn Casey * * * 17:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

9. Neutral Good editor, but I am on the fence as to promotion to Admin.
10. Neutral. Questionable CSD work. Otherwise, generally good contributions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:31, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
11. Neutral He's a great editor, and helped me out on IRC when it really wasn't something he was into, but after looking through the above decision and especially the CSD stuff, I don't know which side to really take.--fetchcomms 22:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

    Neutral leaning toward oppose, switched from support. There's something odd going on with 龗 that merits a much better explanation than "they left the computer logged on." Some straight answers are needed here. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC) switched to oppose

12. Neutral per Hersfold et. al. Too many concerns here, and I don't think he explained his connection with 龗 well enough. Similarities between the timing of edits, the SPI, and the BN thread are concerning. I will continue to follow this over the night; I may support if he can adequately explain what happened here, and will oppose otherwise. — The Earwig @ 00:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Echoing AJCham's comments above. Chzz is an excellent editor and I would love to hear his side of the story; this just doesn't seem right. I'll give Chzz a reasonable amount of time to respond... but consider this a weak oppose in the meantime. — The Earwig @ 02:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

13. Neutral (moved from weak support, now leaning to oppose) - Too many concerns regarding his relationship with 龗. I was supporting (weakly) and this is the straw that has broken the camel's back, so to speak. Apparently, the CU evidence is "very convincing," enough to persuade me to go neutral. Cocytus [»talk«] 01:05, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
14. Neutral: Moving from support until a better explanation is available on the sock issues. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

    Neutral tending towards oppose re alternate account issues. Like others I await a better explanation from the candidate. Crafty (talk) 03:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC) Screw it. Switching to oppose. I don't see what explanation the candidate will be able to offer for this that would save his RfA. In the unlikely even that he does manage that I will reconsider then. Crafty (talk) 05:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

15. Neutral Moved from support. I came here with a STRONG STRONG SUPPORT attitude, and voted in that manner. I just don't know what to say anymore. Disappointing.--Gordonrox24 | ^Talk 19:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

The above adminship discussion is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the talk page of either this nomination or the nominated user). No further edits should be made to this page.